Opinion
No. 20-7430
02-23-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRYONTO MCGRIER, a/k/a Rodney Jones, Defendant - Appellant.
Terryonto McGrier, Appellant Pro Se. Courtney Lucille Cremeans, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00196-1) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terryonto McGrier, Appellant Pro Se. Courtney Lucille Cremeans, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Terryonto McGrier appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his supervised release term, pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 ("First Step Act"), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, and his motion for early termination of his supervised release term, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Although the court found McGrier eligible for relief under the First Step Act, the court exercised its discretion not to reduce or terminate his term of supervised release. In reaching its decision, the court accurately described the record, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for denying the motions. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McGrier's motions under the First Step Act and § 3583(e)(1). See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion); United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing decision on § 3583(e)(1) motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED